Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <edmundo@rano.org> a tapoté :
> Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>:
>
> > > Manuals are not free software, because they are not software.
> > > The DFSG very clearly treats "software" and "programs" as
> > > synonymous.
> >
> > And we very clearly treat everything in Debian as software (see the
> > first clause of the Social Contract).
> >
> > That clause appears to neglect the fact that there are things
> > other than software in the system. It seems to say that all the
> > software must be free software.
>
> Aaargh!
>
> Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
> => Debian Will Remain 100% Software
>
> If I buy something in the supermarket that is advertised as "100%
> cow's milk" I expect to get 100% milk. I don't expect to get 85% cow's
> milk, 15% goat's piss and the piss-poor excuse that 100% of the milk
> is from cows.
If you live in a country which include in his definition of Milk the
goat's piss, well, you'll surely be disappointed when doing your
day-to-day shopping.
Replace milk by chocolate and you'll see that it's not just an pure
invention of mind but a real case.
So what matters most is the definition you follow.
However, Debian has a pretty clear definition, according to supposedly
Bruce Perens's statements. According to this clear definition, the
official Debian Logo should go in non-free.
Does everybody on that list, that thinks that GNU
political/historical/philosophical/ texts must be DSFG compliant to be
distributed by Debian, also thinks that the Debian logos must be DFSG
compliant?
To refresh your mind, let's quote the very explicit
<http://www.debian.org/logos/> page:
"Although Debian can be obtained for free and will always
remain that way, events such as the problem with the ownership
of the term Linux have shown that Debian needs to protect
its property from any use which could hurt its reputation.
Debian has decided to create two logos: one logo is for
official Debian use; the other logo falls under an open use
type license."
The French translation is a lot more funny:
"Bien que Debian puisse être obtenue gratuitement et qu'il en
sera toujours ainsi, des événements tels que le conflit au
sujet de la propriété du terme « Linux » ont prouvé que Debian
avait besoin de protéger sa propriété intellectuelle de tout
usage pouvant porter préjudice à sa réputation.
Debian a décidé de créer deux logos : l'un est pour
l'utilisation officielle de Debian; l'autre a une licence
permettant un usage libre."
If I retranslate it back in English, in the original version I would
replace "to protect its property" by "to protect its intellectual
property" (interesting concept!) and "an open use type license" by "a
free usage license" (let's say a free software license!).
I note that none of this two texts clearly states that the official
logo have no Free use (Free as defined by Debian), but just talk about
"Debian official use" instead.
Here comes the Debian Official Logo License. I will not make fun by
explaining how it's not DFSG compliant:
"Debian Official Use Logo License
Copyright (c) 1999 Software in the Public Interest
1. This logo may only be used if:
* the product it is used for is made using a
documented procedure as published on www.debian.org (for
example official CD-creation)
* official approval is given by Debian for its use in this purpose
2. May be used if an official part of debian (decided using
the rules in I) is part of the complete product, if it is
made clear that only this part is officially approved
3. We reserve the right to revoke a license for a product
Permission has been given to use the official logo on clothing
(shirts, hats, etc) as long as they are made by a Debian
developer and not sold for profit."
So the next step seems obvious to me, Debian have make a choice:
- follow the strict definition of DFSG promoted by many
persons on that list and move the Official Debian Logo to
non-free.
- think about an another policy for logos or
political/philosophical/historical texts.
(PS: I will not read off-topic mails. And, no, discussions ad hominem
is not on-topic.)
--
Mathieu Roy
Homepage:
http://yeupou.coleumes.org
Not a native english speaker:
http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Reply to: